Frenke v. Frenke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frenke v. Frenke

267 A.D.2d 238, 699 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12543

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 238 (Frenke v. Frenke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frenke v. Frenke, 267 A.D.2d 238, 699 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (McElligott, J.), entered January 8, 1999, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Crosson, H.E.), dated October 26,1998, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition for a downward modification of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting a decision of the Social Security Administration as some evidence, but not prima facie evidence, of the facts contained therein (see, Cramer v Kuhns, 213 AD2d 131, 136; Kaiser v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 170 Misc 2d 321, 326; cf., CPLR 4520). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (McElligott, J.), entered January 8, 1999, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Crosson, H.E.), dated October 26,1998, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition for a downward modification of child support.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting a decision of the Social Security Administration as some evidence, but not prima facie evidence, of the facts contained therein (see, Cramer v Kuhns, 213 AD2d 131, 136; Kaiser v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 170 Misc 2d 321, 326; cf., CPLR 4520). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 238, 699 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frenke-v-frenke-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack